Spath v. Geyer

B.P.A.I. (2008)

Fitzpatrick Prevails In Interference On Automotive Engine Technology

In an interference involving automobile engine components, Fitzpatrick prevailed on behalf of our client, INA-Schaeffler KG (Senior Party Geyer). Fitzpatrick first defeated preliminary motions by Junior Party Spath seeking judgment based on its allegations of lack of written description and no interference-in-fact. Fitzpatrick then persuaded the Board that Spath had not proven an earlier reduction to practice by virtue of an early CAD model, and that Spath had failed to prove derivation of the invention through a common customer. The Board entered judgment against Spath and cancelled the corresponding claim from Spath’s previously issued patent.